RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007024 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director



Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



Member

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect an upgrade of his discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting benefits that are due to him because of the way he was discharged.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
20 January 1984.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3. 

3.  On 19 October 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $156.00 pay (suspended for 1 month), to be place in correctional custody for 7 days, 
14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.  

4.  On 11 September 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 June to 8 September 1985.  

5.  On 12 September 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the effects of a discharge under conditions other than honorable and of the rights available to him.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, the request was made of his own free will and he was not coerced into making the request.  The applicant understood that by submitting the request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him.  He also acknowledged that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He further acknowledged he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant stated, in effect, that he could not live under the Army’s rules and regulation and that there were certain things that he did that were not allowed.  “In other words I can’t stand it; I can’t take it no more.”

6.  On 18 September 1985, a Report of Medical Examination found the applicant fit for retention or separation from service.  

7.  On 9 October 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  

8.  On 29 October 1985, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 (for the good of the service – In lieu of court-martial).  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 1 years, 6 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service and accrued 87 days of time lost.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

12.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contention of the applicant was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.  

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.  Further, the applicant acknowledged in a signed statement that he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits administered by the VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable condition.   

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of short and undistinguished service.  

4.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. 

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__BJE___  __JAM __  ___CAD_  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/11/08
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.